>>5611 I agree maybe I should have posted it in /boo/, but I still think it's an interesting paradigm.
>It's not that big of a jump if you accept the existence of spirits. Think about how the artists in the old days would invoke the "Muse", which must have been something like a familiar spirit to them. For thousands of years humanity has been convinced of the reality of spirits. It's only recently that we became "enlightened" and "scientific" under the auspices of Masonic lodges pushing materialism down our throats. I think angels have a hand in good art, and I think devils have a hand in evil art. That a lot of the great geniuses in art and science talk about their big breakthroughs as mystical epiphanies it becomes more suspicious. A common way that artist's express it is that they "get out of the way of the music and let it come to me / write itself". A lot of them (artists AND scientists) get their inspiration from drug taking, and if you look at the Bible or even just modern day Shamanism in primitive cultures, you see that "mind-altering drugs" have always been associated with witchcraft/occultism.
>We (modern scientific enlightened ones) are about the only culture that has ever abandoned the notion that spirits exist. The official story is that science saved mankind from superstition, but I question that story.
>>5613 You should definitely have posted it in /boo/ (or perhaps /A/) if that's the angle you want to take, and I'm not sure your wall-of-text pics are the best leaping off point - your bit of greentext there sums it up much better than 5 chunks of fundamentalist Christian '99% of art is Satanic' bumf. It's an interesting notion and one worth discussing (Alan Moore is talking about much the same thing but in different terms with his concepts of ideaspace and the entities that inhabit it, for example, and I've seen other writers use different metaphors for the same basic idea) but it doesn't feel like /lit/ territory to me.
re: your quote
When I don't take my medication I see and hear things that aren't really there. People in the shadows, conspiracies that don't exist, entities telling me things that aren't real. Coincidentally I am also a published author, and all of my stories have been created when I've stopped taking my medication for extended periods of time. I have a much more vivid imagination when I'm not on the drugs, and a much more boring life when I'm taking them.
Has humanity developed a family of drugs (antipsychotics) that can block our ability to see and hear the spirit realm? It's entirely possible I suppose, but conventional scientific wisdom would suggest that the spirit real is a myth and the reality is entirely mundane except in a few individuals with overactive imaginations. I suppose it's handy (but entirely coincidental) that your theory of existence discounts the only currently accepted theory that would simultaneously disprove its own existence.
Just so you know, a "muse" is basically a schizophrenic personality. If you've ever talked to a schizo you'll know what I mean. It's the ability (inability?) to think in multiple and disjointed threads. As an example, I could be talking to you about shagging your missus, the word shagging could make me think of my own sexual experiences, my own experiences could make me think of school uniforms, school uniforms could make me thing of my primary school teacher who was a ginger buck toothed bird, bucked tooth birds could make me think of buggs bunny. So if you're talking to someone about some bird you shagged and they bring up buggs bunny in the next sentence, they're probably schizo. This quality allows them to write and generally be creative well, but is terrible for ordinary mundane interaction. It is not supernatural, it is a series of misused synapses in the brain.
>>5615 I'm pretty sure "muse" is such a vague term that it's not basically anything.
>>5616 You don't sound rude, you sound a bit slow, or at least to be missing the point, which judging from the other responses so far I haven't made very clear so fair enough. I didn't say it was believable, I said it was interesting. Responding to someone referring you to the bible with "Hahaha, *sigh*" is quite fedoracore, as are the rest of your comments. Step outside your own head for a bit.
>I'm pretty sure "muse" is such a vague term that it's not basically anything.
So if someone uses the word muse their post is immune to criticism? Sageru m8.
>>5619 >it's all the muse
>the muse is basically x
>muse is inconceivable and undefinable
>so using the word muse means that I can't prove you wrong?
>what?
>>5623 >so using the word muse means that I can't prove you wrong?
>prove you wrong
>you
This thread has passed the point where that's a reasonable mistake to be making, you're an idiot. Like I've already said, it's not my point of view. I'm not trying to argue that it's valid in any way, I just think it's an interesting paradigm. You know how a story can be interesting even if it's fiction?
No, not really. The fact that you felt the ideas were strong enough that you had to try and disprove them at all makes me sad for humanity. Yes, they're batshit, but how insecure in your own reality do you have to be to feel the need to argue with the batshit? Not to mention the struggle I've had to make it clear to you that it's not my opinion. As though presenting them in screenshots and greentext doesn't make it obvious in the first place.
If an idea is presented it is worthy of debate, regardless of origin or intent. I debated the idea in good faith, i.e. I believed that you (one) weren't taking the piss out of me or us.
If you (one) need(s) to distance yourself from an idea while you present it, you must be aware that it is an inherently flawed idea. If you believe it but aren't willing to stand by it, you are a terrible person.
>>5627 I'm not taking the piss out of anyone, I just thought it was an interesting read. Sharing something interesting doesn't mean I should have to defend its content. Like I've said multiple times now, I don't believe it, it's just interesting. I wouldn't be talking about it in the abstract as a paradigm or idea if it was something I actually believed, now would I? Do you expend the same amount of energy trying to persuade people who link you to the timecube website that "they" are wrong?
No I don't, but that's because the people who link to the timecube website don't tend to be from .gs. If someone from .gs were to link to the timecube website I would attempt to engage them in serious debate because I would trust their intentions.
I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that you agreed with the quote but felt it to be more /boo/ material, but that you would post it in this thread anyway because it was relevant.
Fair enough, I just felt aggrieved that I had to repeat myself so many times, but it's understandable given that it was in different threads of conversation.
Do you think I could read any of the things you've had published? I'm curious now.
Most of them have been short stories, some in children's books and as filler. Most of my work is on creepypasta.com under Anonymous. A couple are on crappypasta.com, for which I am eternally ashamed. I don't want to link you to my work as it would be easy to link the themes from source to source and being a fucking nutter isn't something I want my colleagues to know about.
I'll give you one of my crappypasta stories that I knocked out in a night. It's a bit shit and based on quite a lot of shitty stories I was reading on the other place's /x/ at the time. I was completely drunk when I wrote it so the style is untraceable, I think anyway.
Cheers, I enjoyed reading that. The writing itself is pretty clear, but the plot leaves a bit to be desired and seems to chuck in one more extra idea than is needed, the soul-harvester thing just seems a bit out of place, and slightly derivative too. Not that I read a lot of creepypasta. Anything else?
>>5638 I've not read any childrens books in the last five years, but I'll keep an eye out. Good luck with uni, writing and your mother. I hope you manage to cope on way or another with balancing your use of meds.
Sorry, I have a habit of deleting personally identifying posts on imageboards. I feel an intense sense of paranoia after I make them even when there's really nothing in them one way or the other.
